N Korean situation: How's Obama doing?

Dixie said:
No, dixie hasn't been in the military. However, if we are going to disqualify people who never were in the military, then we need to have Obama step down from office. Whenever we have votes pertaining to anything regarding the military, we need to disqualify all votes from representatives who never served in the military. And when we go to the polls to cast our vote for commander in chief of our military, those who never served in the military should have their votes tossed out. You cool with that? Then shut the fuck up!
Click to expand...

Calm down dear, I just find it a little odd that you are telling Billy about Iraq. I would suggest that he might have a little more insight than you.
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
LOL

Never heard of PNAC, eh bravs?

Iraq history was never really a forte for you.

And jeez - what apologism for Cheney. That's embarassing.
Click to expand...


Whats your point ?....No one denies that PNAC supported the removal of Saddam.....just as Clinton did, just as the United Nations did....bi-partisan support for Clinton was not
unheard of in the 90's......we all believed the same thing about WMD and Saddam in those days....everyone except you, that is....

Letting your imagination get the best of you again ?

As a matter of fact, PNAC's beliefs and intentions are the very evidence that proves that the Democrats that voted for the Iraq War Resolution and then claimed they didn't know what they were voting for or that they were 'duped' into voting for the war are hypocrites....
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Calm down dear, I just find it a little odd that you are telling Billy about Iraq. I would suggest that he might have a little more insight than you.
Click to expand...

I don't know who "Billy" is, this is an Internet forum where people post anonymously, and can literally say whatever they want about themselves. J-tard claims to be a lawyer, Mott's supposed to be some kind of astrophysicist, and most of the time, you couldn't rub the two of them together and get a coherent thought.

If he served in Iraq, I find it extremely odd that he was serving side-by-side with Iraqi people who he now claims we were "at war" with. Didn't he think that was a little odd? Is it not fairly unprecedented for a nation to help establish and protect a government and their elections, while still at war with that country?

Saddam's army, which was reported to be the 5th largest standing army in the world, and his elite Republican Guard, folded like a cheap K-Mart tent, and it took us about 18 days to capture Baghdad. We had literally more Iraqi soldiers surrendering to us than we could handle, that was probably the one aspect of the invasion we didn't anticipate and weren't prepared for. Following the defeat of Saddam's army, we encountered hostility from insurgent forces, people who were not Iraqi military, who were mostly foreign terrorists. THEY put up a fight, and it took us nearly 10 years to get Iraqi security to a place where they could handle this. But we were certainly not waging war against Iraq at this time.
 
Howey said:
Ship all the Texans and Alabamians to North Korea. After a week of hearing all that stupid they'll be turning he nukes on themselves.
Click to expand...
Burn all the blue states to the ground, and we won't have to ship Texans and Alabamians to North Korea.
 
Dixie said:
No, dixie hasn't been in the military. However, if we are going to disqualify people who never were in the military, then we need to have Obama step down from office. Whenever we have votes pertaining to anything regarding the military, we need to disqualify all votes from representatives who never served in the military. And when we go to the polls to cast our vote for commander in chief of our military, those who never served in the military should have their votes tossed out. You cool with that? Then shut the fuck up!
Click to expand...

There are two types of people. Those that tell and those that are told. It is the latter that joins the military.
 
Dixie said:
Okay, we're discussing what can be done, and everything you come up with that is not invading and taking out the regime, has been tried and it didn't work. You want to cling to this notion that we can only use our military when we are attacked directly, is a bit on the shallow-minded side, what about our allies? What would be the point of ANY country being allied with the US, if they know the US is never going to help them defend their countries if attacked?

Cheney thought it may take 6 months to defeat Saddam's army... it took less than three weeks, most of them surrendered without us firing a shot. Now, dealing with the influx of alQaeda who flooded into Iraq after we invaded (if they weren't there before), that took a while, and the insurgents put up a bit of a fight, and we lost some lives. But defeating Iraq and Saddam was a piece of cake, and Cheney actually over-estimated.

The deal with North Korea is not much different from the bully situation in school. We can keep giving NK our lunch money, and they will continue to act like bullies, or we can do what everyone has always done to deal with a bully, and pop the son of a bitch in the kisser. Nowadays, we have all these lefties running around emoting about "stop the bullying" and I can teach you how to end your bully problem in about 2 minutes. Hurts your knuckles for a bit, you may need an ice pack, but you'll end your bully problem. Guaranteed to work, every single time.

To deal with NK, I would put a few warships around the peninsula, a couple of aircraft carriers, and deploy a few hundred thousand troops to SK. Then I would (as president) announce that we will view any missile launch as a breach of the ceasefire agreement, and promise retaliation. If they still launched, I would unleash a hell on them that the world has never seen. Using our state of the art technology to turn NK into a grease spot. In less than 30 days it would all be over, and we'd never have a problem out of NK again. Afterwards, I would send a one-word memo to the president of Iran... "Next?"
Click to expand...

Everything most certainly has not been tried. Only western thought has prevailed and that is simply to 'threaten'. The strange thing is that if America was threatened the likelihood of them kowtowing is absolute zero. The stupidity comes with the belief that your enemies are all stupid.
Guess what - that's what your enemies think, too.
 
Lowaicue said:
Everything most certainly has not been tried. Only western thought has prevailed and that is simply to 'threaten'. The strange thing is that if America was threatened the likelihood of them kowtowing is absolute zero. The stupidity comes with the belief that your enemies are all stupid.
Guess what - that's what your enemies think, too.
Click to expand...

I didn't advocate we threaten. You're right, empty threats are stupid.
 
Dixie said:
I don't know who "Billy" is, this is an Internet forum where people post anonymously, and can literally say whatever they want about themselves. J-tard claims to be a lawyer, Mott's supposed to be some kind of astrophysicist, and most of the time, you couldn't rub the two of them together and get a coherent thought.

If he served in Iraq, I find it extremely odd that he was serving side-by-side with Iraqi people who he now claims we were "at war" with. Didn't he think that was a little odd? Is it not fairly unprecedented for a nation to help establish and protect a government and their elections, while still at war with that country?

Saddam's army, which was reported to be the 5th largest standing army in the world, and his elite Republican Guard, folded like a cheap K-Mart tent, and it took us about 18 days to capture Baghdad. We had literally more Iraqi soldiers surrendering to us than we could handle, that was probably the one aspect of the invasion we didn't anticipate and weren't prepared for. Following the defeat of Saddam's army, we encountered hostility from insurgent forces, people who were not Iraqi military, who were mostly foreign terrorists. THEY put up a fight, and it took us nearly 10 years to get Iraqi security to a place where they could handle this. But we were certainly not waging war against Iraq at this time.
Click to expand...
. Insurgent forces in Iraq were "MOSTLY FOREIGN TERRORISTS"?????? Got a link that would support that claim?
 
Dixie said:
Got a link to dispute that claim?
Click to expand...

You made the initial claim, dumbo.

And it's a hairsplitting claim. The idea is that war is completely unpredictable and thus should be avoided at all costs, and used only as a last resort. Your counter to that was that the Iraq War was really over in 18 days - even thought fighting went on for over 10 years.

Who gives a flap who we were fighting with? Fighting is fighting - unforeseen consequences are just that.

You're an idiot.
 
Dixie said:
Got a link to dispute that claim?
Click to expand...
why in the world would I need a link when YOU made the claim that the Iraqi insurgency was -quote- MOSTLY FOREIGN TERRORISTS - unquote?

But out of the kindness of my heart, I'll give you a couple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(post-U.S._withdrawal)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

From the second one:


"The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. The Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimates that less than 10% of insurgents are non-Iraqi foreign fighters."

So.. Your turn to provide a link that disproves mine and shows that the Iraq insurgency was "MOSTLY foreign terrorists"

Link up or STFU. Your choice.
 
Dixie said:
Got a link to dispute that claim?
Click to expand...

Gotta love it. Dixie never cites sources (those voices in his head refuse) but when someone else posts something, he's demanding a source!

Here ya go, pinhead:

http://www.salon.com/2007/03/02/insurgency_3/

Describe the insurgency.

You have to be careful when you say “insurgency.” You have to distinguish between the Shiite militias and the actual insurgency, which is the Sunni groups. Most of the Shiite militia activity is not directed at the U.S., it’s directed at the Sunnis. The Sunni insurgency, meanwhile, is directed at everyone — the U.S., the Iraqi government, the militias.

The best way to divide it up is into three camps. You have Sunni nationalists, initially a large portion of the insurgency; the moderate Sunni Islamists, who use Islamic terminology and talk about establishing a government based on Sharia law; and you have the Salafists, like the group Al-Qaida in Iraq. To them, the fight is not about preserving the borders of Iraq, it’s about revolution, about rebuilding something completely new on the basis of some kind of idyllic Muslim empire.

What drives people to join the insurgency?

I’ve called up families of fighters and when I ask that question, the response is always the same: Wouldn’t you? They are extremely upset about what’s going on in Iraq. Some of them have a burning hatred for the U.S. They see the U.S. as imposing its will on their countries. Some of them have a burning desire to be a missionary and martyr for Islam. You have people who have broken out of prison and gone to fight in Iraq. It’s now a vacuum sucking in every disaffected voice in the region.

How has the insurgency evolved?

When the U.S. invasion began in 2003, it was mainly Baathists, ex-Iraqi military, and Saddam loyalists. They were Iraqi nationalists, opposed to foreign occupation, who saw Iraq as a competitor with Egypt for the control of the Arab world. It was an issue of national pride. Video recordings and communiqués were coming out from everybody who had an AK-47. But as the war dragged on, some of these groups started coalescing; others were destroyed. Only the strongest, the most hardcore, the best financed, the people with the most training, survived, despite airstrikes and the arrest of their senior leaders by the U.S. military.

Do you call the insurgents “terrorists”?

No. The nationalist insurgents have done a lot of really brutal things. But in general they are people opposed to foreign occupation. If foreign occupation were removed, they wouldn’t necessarily sit down and shake hands with Shiites. But at the end of the day, they would like to see a peaceful Iraq where Sunnis and Shiites can at least coexist with each other. Terrorists are people who set off bombs in marketplaces and deliberately kill innocent civilians for no good reason. Any suicide bombing is a terrorist act. It’s not an insurgent act. There is no military objective in it. The vast majority of suicide bombings that take place in Iraq are either the work of al-Qaida or al-Qaida-linked groups. Al-Qaida are the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Once again...Dixie farts another fail.
 
Last edited:
There was a claim from the anti-war left that used to get thrown around in 2003-2004 that stated Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism and that jihadists were flocking there from all over the region to kill Americans and destabilize Iraq. Dixie probably heard the claims and responded "we have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here."
 
Threedee said:
There was a claim from the anti-war left that used to get thrown around in 2003-2004 that stated Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism and that jihadists were flocking there from all over the region to kill Americans and destabilize Iraq. Dixie probably heard the claims and responded "we have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here."
Click to expand...

Wasn't that a Dubya line too?

Military: No Influx Of Foreign Terrorists
November 02, 2003|By Tribune Newspapers
BAGHDAD, IRAQ — Though the Bush administration has for months claimed that foreign fighters were entering Iraq to kill Americans, U.S. military commanders who are responsible for monitoring the borders here say that they have not witnessed a large infiltration of foreign terrorists.

As recently as Tuesday, President Bush told reporters "the foreign terrorists are trying to create conditions of fear and retreat because they fear a free and peaceful state in the midst of a part of the world where terror has found recruits."
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
I don't know who "Billy" is, this is an Internet forum where people post anonymously, and can literally say whatever they want about themselves. J-tard claims to be a lawyer, Mott's supposed to be some kind of astrophysicist, and most of the time, you couldn't rub the two of them together and get a coherent thought.

If he served in Iraq, I find it extremely odd that he was serving side-by-side with Iraqi people who he now claims we were "at war" with. Didn't he think that was a little odd? Is it not fairly unprecedented for a nation to help establish and protect a government and their elections, while still at war with that country?

Saddam's army, which was reported to be the 5th largest standing army in the world, and his elite Republican Guard, folded like a cheap K-Mart tent, and it took us about 18 days to capture Baghdad. We had literally more Iraqi soldiers surrendering to us than we could handle, that was probably the one aspect of the invasion we didn't anticipate and weren't prepared for. Following the defeat of Saddam's army, we encountered hostility from insurgent forces, people who were not Iraqi military, who were mostly foreign terrorists. THEY put up a fight, and it took us nearly 10 years to get Iraqi security to a place where they could handle this. But we were certainly not waging war against Iraq at this time.
Click to expand...

The Coalition Provisional Authority made two disastrous decisions at the beginning of the U.S. occupation of Iraq: to vengefully drive members of the Ba'ath Party from public life and to recklessly disband the Iraqi army. These two steps alienated the formerly ruling Sunnis, created a pool of angry rebels in waiting and sparked the insurgency.

As to your question about who's Billy, how long have you been on these forums anyway?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ation-How-s-Obama-doing&p=1197070#post1197070
 
First of all, I don't know who Centre for Strategic and International Studies are, or their motivations behind their guesswork. My initial initial statement, was that the insurgency was comprised of former Saddam cronies and terrorists, and most of the terrorists were foreign. I'll stick with that.

But how did this thread get diverted into another rehash of Iraq? Maineman, since you've returned, this seems to be emerging into a pattern. Why can't we keep the conversation centered on North Korea and how to deal with that problem... which is a completely different problem with a completely different solution?

Now, I realize, some of you pinheads are just always going to be this way, for the rest of your lives, you are going to emotively genuflect toward Iraq any time war is mentioned. I get, that you're going to take every opportunity to drag the dead horses back out and beat them one more time. But honestly, we can't function as a nation like this.
 
Dixie said:
First of all, I don't know who Centre for Strategic and International Studies are, or their motivations behind their guesswork. My initial initial statement, was that the insurgency was comprised of former Saddam cronies and terrorists, and most of the terrorists were foreign. I'll stick with that.

But how did this thread get diverted into another rehash of Iraq? Maineman, since you've returned, this seems to be emerging into a pattern. Why can't we keep the conversation centered on North Korea and how to deal with that problem... which is a completely different problem with a completely different solution?

Now, I realize, some of you pinheads are just always going to be this way, for the rest of your lives, you are going to emotively genuflect toward Iraq any time war is mentioned. I get, that you're going to take every opportunity to drag the dead horses back out and beat them one more time. But honestly, we can't function as a nation like this.
Click to expand...

If you don't remember past mistakes, you are doomed to repeat them.
 
Once again, Dixie who partially quotes wikipedia but never gives a source refuses to read a source that proves him wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top